But if we start factoring those things in, aren't we approaching a strategy similar to Parafuse or Serene Paraflinch?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
np: OU Suspect Testing Round 3 - So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
- Thread starter reachzero
- Start date
- Status
But if we start factoring those things in, aren't we approaching a strategy similar to Parafuse or Serene Paraflinch?
Pretty sure they won't. They should, but the past says otherwise back when Salamence and Latias were booted.
Before I respond, I just want to point out that you say we try to "keep" it OU, implying that it is inherently Uber, which is untrue. Everything is OU until proven broken, with the exception of blatantly obvious cases such as Kyogre and Ho-Oh.
1. The "lead metagame" as we know it is extinct. Deoxys-S is not the only lead who can use Magic Coat (the move was given to a ton of pokemon), meaning that its Taunt may end up futile or its hazards could easily be reflected back. If it has to come down to a game of prediction, then it is not by any means leagues above other leads as it once was. Non-attacking leads are almost nonexistant now that Team Preview exists, and as such anti-leads are also much less desirable. Deoxys-S biggest niche (and one of the two that got it quick banned last round) has been drastically cut down.
2. Psychic has plenty of targets, but the resists far outnumber them. The high base power along with a powerful water STAB is what makes LO Starmie so good - Deoxys lacks that same STAB power. Psychic may hit Terrakion, Conkeldurr, Virizion (who has huge SpD, mind you), Infernape, and Machamp, but it is resisted by a ton of things such as Tyranitar, Ferrothorn, Latios, Jirachi, Bronzong, Reuniclus...the list goes on. The metagame is fairly balanced between bulk and speed, honestly. And what is the big deal that Starmie and Gengar have something that outspeeds them? SpecsJolt did that last gen and they had few issues; Excadrill does so this gen and the same holds true. Deoxys-A has the power to crush everything, but if you want to clean late-game with Deoxys-S you will need to have inflicted a considerably higher amount of damage compared to even LO Starmie or Terrakion.
3. What is Taunting Dual Screens Azelf or Latios (both of which also have the element of surprise; you won't see me Taunt Latios because Specs Draco Meteor is much more threatening)? Jirachi? The things that Taunt them will also Taunt Deoxys-s: Prankster genies.
The "unpredictability" factor is much less significant with Deoxys-S because it will not be causing the unprecedented damage you speak of in your allusion to Blaziken. I mispredicted your Ice Beam and you Superpowered Ferrothorn? Oh well, I survived it anyway because you are splitting EVs between attacking stats that barely scrape by the average mark. Deoxys-S does not have the sheer power to make its unpredictable sets as effective as Salamence or Blaziken's, especially this gen where everything has bulk one way or another.
4. If anything, the fact that the metagame already revolves around bulky, powerful attackers means that it will have little issues taking Deoxys-S into the fold, and it hasn't as of yet. So what if Deoxys-s hangs over Starmie and Gengar's heads? Starmie and Gengar in turn hang over Terrakion and Infernape's head, but no one seems to be complaining. It isn't difficult to take Deoxys-S's attacks at all with SpD Jirachi, Tyranitar, Ferrothorn, Reuniclus, and Jellicent running amok. All Deoxys-s has is its speed which, if it lacked, it would be almost worthless. It NEEDS that speed to be viable at all.
5. Previous tiering is irrelevant in a new gen - just look at Latias and Deoxys-D. I'd actually argue Deoxys-D's stalling set to be more effective than Deoxys-S. Agility / Toxic / Recover / Taunt struggles against steels (what deoxys doesn't?), but you cannot Taunt it and it is nearly impossible to kill without some significant power. Again, it outperforms a class of lead that is generally much less effective this gen. How can you claim that nothing has changed when Team Preview's implementation is one of the biggest changes this gen? Even if it weren't around, Magic Coat's buff makes a "new class" of anti-lead, while, as you said, Deoxys-s hasn't changed.
Then fucking ban stealth rock. You first banned Drizzle in tandem with swift swim (despite rain still being incredibly powerful regardless so it's like WHOOP DE DOO big deal) you banned inconsistent, you've banned speed boost blaziken, you're arguing whether or not to ban reuniculus despite the fact that it's a PSYCHIC type, etc. Where does it end?
Just listen to the smog cast. They wanted to ban ALL weather, and the move shell smash too. You guys are too ban happy it's ridiculous. Yet all the while stealth rock was never banned despite the fact that it DEFINED the 4th gen metagame. Awesome pokemon with awesome stats? Too bad it's stealth rock weak and will never see the OU light of day. If over centralizing is logic being used to ban shit everywhere, then at least be consistent in applying it.
All this about adding luck to the game or letting less skilled players win is a load of shit. You do realize that even if Pokemon were a completely deterministic game with complete information, a more skilled player would not win 100% of the time over a less skilled one. And this is not a negligible probability until the skill difference becomes staggeringly large. The various very low probability scenarios that people bring up to justify banning things like brightpowder are dwarfed by this inherent variation of personal performance.
But it goes even further than that. Brightpowder isn't used for a reason. We all know that brightpowder is inferior to the more standard item choices. Thus, by using brightpowder, you have decreased your chance of winning. Further, skilled players will recognize this, while less skilled players may not. Brightpowder does not make it less likely that the more skilled player will win; it makes it more likely.
But, of course, no one considers that. No one considers that his sweep might have been cut short had his opponent used leftovers to turn the 2HKO into a 3HKO. No one considers that he might have lost if his opponent had had Life Orb's 1.3x boost to break through his last wall. All anyone cares about is not being the one person in a hundred who happened to have that 10% miss make a difference.
But it goes even further than that. Brightpowder isn't used for a reason. We all know that brightpowder is inferior to the more standard item choices. Thus, by using brightpowder, you have decreased your chance of winning. Further, skilled players will recognize this, while less skilled players may not. Brightpowder does not make it less likely that the more skilled player will win; it makes it more likely.
But, of course, no one considers that. No one considers that his sweep might have been cut short had his opponent used leftovers to turn the 2HKO into a 3HKO. No one considers that he might have lost if his opponent had had Life Orb's 1.3x boost to break through his last wall. All anyone cares about is not being the one person in a hundred who happened to have that 10% miss make a difference.
#1: Drizzle is not broken anymore. I know this as a user of Rain Offense without Drizzle. I only have 3 offensive abusers of the weather, Rotom-W, Azumarill, and Tornadus. I lose my fair share of games. It just dominated Sand teams, as they are naturally at a disadvantage, and Azumarill murders Landlos and Excadrill.
#2: Stealth Rock? Centralising? In Gen 5? I see more Spikes, frankly.
And, if SR was ever centralising in Gen 4, anything that took 25%+ wouldn't ever be OU. Like Gyarados and Zapdos. Things like Specs Latias, who have to keep switching in and out would also have not been broken, if SR was centralising enough to discourage this tactic. Sure, Charizard and Moltres were not OU, but SR didn't stop Moltres from dominateing UU, nor Charizard ripping NU apart [He actually fit in quite well there too]
Stealth Rock was the hazard of choice, yes, but the only things that were really pushed out of OU were the x4 weak pokemon to it, most of which would never see the light of OU ANYWAY. [Articuno, Bug/flying types barring Yanmega...]
#3: Inconsistant's ban was as an infringement of the Evasion Clause, and the fact that it did not create a desireable metagame. It turned the whole game into rolls of 6 sided dice. Or was it 7? I can never recall if Accuracy could be boosted like Accupressure does.
#4: Blaziken, I've said ore than enough times why it's broken.
#5: Renkulus being a Psychic type has no bearing on anything. Latias, Latios, Deyoxys, Mewtwo, Mew, all were 4th Gen Uber Psychics. The latter 3 are 5th Gen Ubers as well. Also, PSYCHIC IS NOT A BAD TYPING IN GEN 5. There are a lot more fighting-types, and a lot less steels running around. And those that are, about 50% are Ferrothorns, so are disptached by a Focus Blast.
Renkulus is not being discussed because it's a psychic type. It's being discussed because of it's bulk, magic guard, wide movepool, and two sets which destroy whole playstyles [Trick Room dominates offense, LO , possibly with CM or even Recover, dominates Stall]
I most certainly agree that becoming ban happy is a very bad idea. A poke or strategy being used often because of its strengths is natural. Only ban what cannot be countered or what removes strategy from the game such as "drizzle swift swim auto sweeping". I think that was a smart ban. If you ban reuniclus something else will take it's place
Reuniclus does not have a wide movepool. It's pretty predictable what it's gonna use. The fact that it has 2 movesets that "supposedly" destroys 2 playstyles is also meaningless as you either have 1 playstyle or the other and they will either use 1 set or the other and if you happen to run into the wrong set with the wrong team, then that's just bad luck and it's no different than a team that can't handle, say cloyster, running into a cloyster. And I'm sure every team has something they can't handle.
but entry hazards are not always up and the opponent won't be spamming confuse ray all the time 'cause you know instead of switching you can just attack...
confusion moves work like this:your opponent uses them and forces you to switch next turn...
that's the benefit...if your opponent starts spamming it and doesn't switch you can straight up attack...
don't forget that if your opponent tries to confuse you again while you are already confused means that if you don't hit urself from confusion he has essentially lost a turn...
so i don't think that any clever player will rely on confusion so much and instead of just forcing a switch will sit there spamming the move hoping that you hit yourself from confusion...
also by item swap what do you mean?trick?'cause trick can miss against brightpowder...also there are ways to counter focus band such as damaging status,damaging weather,confusion,perish song and i believe more....
finally what do you mean accuracy reducing moves?'cause it is a completely irrelevant matter...if you mean always hitting moves,then no they are not banned but they are not competitively viable except aura shpere and thunder in rain and blizzard in hail...
not only broken things get banned!!!some things get banned 'cause of uncompetitiveness like evasion raising moves(which i explained to you how they are not broken and you didn't answer to the post,so don't try now to state again that they are broken)and the evasion items...
because they can be easily countered that's why..come on confusion and attraction can be easily removed by switching so what are we discussing seriosuly???
there is a difference between luck and unecessary luck...evasion raising moves and items are in play with the only purpose of introducing luck which in a competitive community not wanted...
confusion inducing moves and attract surely also bring unecessary luck in the game but they are easily countered by switching so they are not considered uncompetitive...
of course crits,burns flinches etc are part of the game but they come with other effects not alone...
if an evasion item 'causes you to lose even once in 100 matches 'cause your opponent got lucky then it is considered as uncompetitive and thus banned 'cause we can't let the game be decided by pure luck even in one out of 100 matches...it's clearly a matter of principle!we are playing this game competitively so anything brought in the game with the sole purpose of introducing luck and without any viable counters is not wanted and thus banned...
Elaborate on that first sentence.
We can laugh aside some move combinations, but not others. For each of the moves you listed, if Rayquaza used that move and only that move, it wouldn't be broken. Those moves are only broken when combined with other moves to set up, gain coverage, or both. So it's never a matter of a single move, and there's no good way to determine that it's that single move that should be blamed for the Pokemon being broken and banned. If Dragon Claw and Extremespeed are only broken in combination with a boosting move, do you ban Dragon Claw and Extremespeed, the boosting moves, or the combination? If Rayquaza's STAB Dragon-type moves are only broken in combination with coverage moves that can be used to hit Steel-types neutrally, do you ban the Dragon-type moves, the coverage moves, such as Earthquake, Overheat, and Waterfall (actually, it would take sorting through quite a few combinations to figure out whether or not certain moves could qualify as coverage moves), or the combination? We would never be able to reasonably come up with a good answer for what to ban out of these, so the distinction would always be, to use your word, completely arbitrary. It would also be arbitrary if we were to ban each of those moves on Rayquaza in the first place without spending five rounds of testing to confirm that each of them was broken in isolation from each other, let alone from other moves.
And we aren't talking about Speed Boost. We're talking about Blaziken + Speed Boost, which absolutely does have a movepool - in fact, a different movepool from Blaziken + Blaze, if only slightly. Indeed, the typing and stats are the same, but that alone does not make two Pokemon the same. The Deoxys forms all have the exact same typing, movepool, and ability, and yet right now they reside in three different tiers. The Rotom forms have the same stats, same ability, and almost identical movepool, and yet they too are considered separate and reside in different tiers. Hell, Tornadus and Thundurus have the same stats, same abilities, and extremely similar movepools, and extremely similar types, and yet they are also considered separate Pokemon. It's the same story for the two versions of Blaziken and any other Pokemon, the regular world form and the DW form. At least, in theory it is. The only thing that will make it official whether there's a distinction or not is, as with everything else, a decision from PR. We can argue about this all we wish, but we won't get anywhere until that point.
I had thought that there had been a decision from PR about this last time it was brought up, but that appears to not be the case. While several people rejected it in a discussion, there was no poll, and therefore no official decision.
As others have stated, Paralysis is not used for the purpose of hax; it has a far more significant purpose in reducing the opponent's Speed, and Confusion and Attract can be removed by switching out. This is a key aspect that makes them different from effects such as Evasion. Sleep, too, is used to make a Pokemon unable to act for a short duration; it's only the durartion that's random. And no move exists solely for the purpose of inflicting Freeze. The same goes for crits and flinch moves, except for moves that do so 100% of the time, which are again, not an issue. And as I've stated before, flinch moves must be used each turn in order to be effective, making them possible to counter by switching to a Pokemon that takes insignificant damage from them.
Evasion items are officially considered uncompetitive. You may disagree with that, but the latest poll has established that as official policy. The fact that no testing was necessary indicates that testing is not necessary to deem something uncompetitive.
I would not say King's Rock and Razor Fang are uncompetitive, and I am in fact opposed to the hypothetical banning of either one. Flinching requires the flincher to move first, and there can be strategy in what move is used. If Cloyster dons a King's Rock to get a flinch rate on every hit of its Skill Link Icicle Spear and Rock Blast, it's getting a 40% chance of causing a flinch with each faster use of those moves, which is no longer hax and is instead strategy. It's just like Lava Plume and Discharge - using a weaker move with a substantially higher chance of triggering a luck-based effect, when the luck-based effect is in itself strategical and competitive.
That may have been reasonable in the past, but not right now. We're dealing with proposal bans bans that don't have an official policy with regard to them yet, and someone who simply gains the ability to vote can't contribute at all towards writing that policy. Not directly, at least.
I'm personally not of the opinion Reun is broken, but that's faulty logic. A Pokemon that ensures victory against an entire playstyle (although it doesn't, it just needs to be answered) is different than a Pokemon that a certain team is weak against simply because of scale.
The key here is that it doesn't ensure victory against the entire playstyle and the only reason it appears that way is because the particular team isn't prepared for it in the same way that another team might not be prepared against cloyster.
If cloyster sweeps my HO team every time because I refuse to put in a mach puncher, does it mean cloyster destroys the entire HO playstyle and is therefore broken?
He meant accuracy reducing moves like Sand Attack or Mud Shot, that lowers the opponents accuracy. I've been wondering the same thing actually.
The same thing said of the moves could be said of Speed Boost blaziken. Is speed boost blaziken with incinerate/peck/SD/work up broken? hell no. Is it banned by your combo ban? yes. Speed boost happens to be the link among all broken sets of blaziken, each them possessing it, and if it is removed being non-uber. Having one or more of the moves I listed is a link among all broken sets of rayquaza, and removing them removes all his broken sets. It does ban non-broken sets along the way, but so does banning speed boost blaziken.
It is blaziken which has the movepool not speed boost, and indeed Blaziken cannot learn speed boost along with some moves, but it is ultimately blaziken the movepool is linked too, not speed boost, with speed boost adding some conditions. After all, blaziken cannot learn Ninjask's X-scizzor or Sharpedo's waterfall through speed boost now can it?
And just as only Gamefreak can make different species, only Gamefreak can make different forms. They are something which exist ingame, and are recognized by the pokedex among other things. If we could make different forms, couldn't we have called yache chomp or SD chomp a different form than normal chomp, and simply banned that?
if u guys dont like luck based gameplay then ban all high chance crit hit moves.
not that i actually want that happening. but since luck based gameplay is wrong then ban stone edge, etc.
not that i actually want that happening. but since luck based gameplay is wrong then ban stone edge, etc.
crit moves aren't that big a deal, because there are only like....6 of them or something. plus 2 moves now ALWAYS score crits, but aren't broken, so why ban 'em?
on a side note, I think we need to check on Cloyster. because after 1 Shell Smash (with or without white herb, even!) this dude WILL kill your bloody team unless you have priority. thing is the 5th gen DDmence.
Y'know something I've been wondering--when people bring up that TR Reuniclus destroys Offensive teams, I have to wonder, what's the difference between Reuniclus and any other Trick Room pokemon in that situation? In my experience Trick Room shits on offensive teams anyway, no matter what pokemon you use to start it, so what's the deal?
While the 75% reduction in speed is absolutely massive, I feel you're downplaying the 25% chance of preventing the opponent from making any action (aside from switching out) a little bit too much. After all, the speed reduction does not stop priority but the 25% chance does. Addressing your next point, it's irrelevant to my argument whether or not Confusion and Attract can removed by switching out. The point of the argument was both attract and confusion fit the definition of "encourages the players to rely on luck to win." I mentioned sleep because, aside from Rest, the random number of turns causes it to fit that definition. As for freeze, a 10% chance to unfreeze per round doesn't fit that definition?
And at what point does insignificant damage become significant? After the 5th flinch? The 6th? 12th? Flinches do, in fact, encourage the player to rely on luck to win by their very nature (ignoring 100% probabilities).
No, the latest poll established that a majority of people who qualified to vote did not want Brightpowder or Lax Incense as equipable items. This decision was reached without any sort of discussion about why or why not they should be banned, what makes them broken, etc. It was done, in essence, on a whim without any supporting evidence.
Really, though, if no testing is necessary to determine something as "uncompetitive," doesn't that render idea of "uncompetitive" things moot? There'd be no way to gather evidence as to why something is uncompetitive or why something isn't. It'd only end up being "do enough people that can vote feel like this shouldn't be" and that does not necessarily correlate with whether something is broken or not. Hell, since no testing is needed you could push past that Swords Dance is uncompetitive, at least according to the idea that banned things are uncompetitive.
So, I guess I'll just say that the correlation between uncompetitive things and banning doesn't imply that being uncompetitive is the cause of being banned. That is, to say, uncompetitive things are banned does not imply that banned things are uncompetitive.
Okay, so, at what point does "hax" become "strategy?" Is it a solid thing or more of a grey line that cannot be defined as easily?
no it isn't...something is not uncompetitive when it relys solely on luck,it must also have limited counters...
that isn't the case with confusion and attraction 'cause they have the most used counter:switching...
in the other hand there is no surefire counter against evasion except from always hitting moves...and you know how many of them are in ou right?
so to close this matter 2 things must happen for something to be uncompetitive....
introduction of luck with the only purpsose of doing so AND limited or generally not enough counters!
do you think that if ice beam,flamethrower and t-bolt(or any other commonly used strong moves) always hit,anyone would be complaining about evasion raising moves/items/abilities???
TR Reuniclus takes about 50% of a 252 Atk CB Bullet Punch and OHKOs back with Focus Blast after 2 switchins with SR.
I think that argument is that Reunclus limits stalls options in checking it. Having to use Spiritomb/Latias with Roar (and you lose if its last pokemon)/CB Tar etc limits the options stall has since without using those certain pokemon it risks losing to Reunclus. Its not a matter of stall refusing to use pokemon to counter Reunclus, its just that those options are very limiting.
Offensive teams have a better pool of viable pokemon to counter/check Reunclus and therefore do a better job against it
I think that this post embodies the opinion of most people who are against diminishing hax. I want to dispel some major misconceptions before this becomes popular belief.
Obviously a more skilled player will not defeat a less skilled player every single time. In fact, that is one of the major reasons that PO's rating system is so horribly flawed, but that is beside the fact. However, we should strive to decrease the chance of a more skilled player losing because their opponent was lucky, and by banning things like Confuse Ray, Brightpowder, and Attract we are decreasing the extent that luck plays in determining the outcome of a match. And there are no negative repercussions!
Obviously Brightpowder is an inferior move choice, otherwise it would have been banned long ago. But that is irrelevant, because while it is not a winning strategy, it increases the chance of a more skilled player losing. If they lose because their opponent ran LO and broke through a wall, then they are losing to something that they should have prepared for - in other words, losing legitimately. You can't prepare for Brightpowder or King's Rock in the same way that you can for a LO set. You can't EV your Latios not to hit itself in confusion while your opponent stets up a CM.
- Status